Naive (sorry, it's a long one)

We all have been naive, we the video game playing community. We have for a long time. Naive to think that the situation with games, the status quo would continue forever, Naive to think that things would never change. How wrong we were.

You see, it was inevitable that one of the companies would attempt the shift. Indeed, PC gamers have already lived through that transition, and come out of the other side. And thus, it was only a matter of time before consoles would follow suit. How this transition has been handled has been up for debate over the past 4 weeks, and much rage has been demonstrated. But the simple underlying reason for the longing for this shift is that the people responsible for bringing the games to you, from the person with the first idea, to the person that provides the distribution all want more money. They want what they feel is owed to them for all their hard work, which is a feeling all of us of a working age can identify with.

The second hand games market is what we, the gamer have held onto since consoles began. And rightly so. It is a wonderful thing. For us. But not so much for the developer or the publisher. Why should we care? There are very valid arguments to say that we shouldn't, as well as arguments to say that we should. But consistently, those that argue against will cite the music, book and the film industry as to entertainment forms that do not try to attack their consumers rights. Unfortunately, things are not as simple as just drawing a direct comparison. Each have their own set of unique circumstance that make it difficult. But, they do involve, all, intellectual properties.

Let us take music as a good example. I remember, back in "the day" copying a friends cassette tape. Back then, we knew it was illegal to do so. But, the record labels didn't care, unless you were doing it to make money on a large scale, namely piracy. With the advent of CD's and the advancement of PC's, it became easier and easier to do so, both for your own personal gain, or to make money. At that point, the music industry really cared. And really started to try and combat it. But it wasnt until the internet and a little product known as the ipad came about that the music industry started to get a handle on it, and, ultimately, stopped going after pirates as aggressively as it had been. They still do, but not to the extent they did.

The music industry has also had, for a long time, a secondary source of income. An income that doesn't come from sales. Every time a record is played on the radio, the industry profits. Every time you hear a song in an advert, profit. An arctor sings to themself, profit. A hotel places tv's in its bedrooms, profit. Yes, even that. Hoteliers have to pay a fee to the music industry for televisions because of all the music that can be played on it. I know the son of Emile Ford, who had a number one hit with "What do you want to make those eyes at me for". in 59/60. As his father passed away, he gets royalty cheques every month. And he has done for every month since his father passed. And they are always in the hundreds.

In short, the music industry has many revenue streams besides the sales of CD's. And has for a long time. And the advancement of technology has increased that. For the movie industry, we see a similar pattern, with eventually the internet allowing for massive revenues thanks to online rental sites.

The gaming industry has never had this. It has never had the ability to spread and create new revenue fields and tighten control on its primary income methods. Until now. Now that technology has finally enabled video games to be viably distributed online, they will want to create those increased revenues and tighten control. They all will. Every developer, every publisher, and every console manufacturer. No matter how much their rhetoric may say otherwise.

But does it have to be a bad thing? To the consumer, the cost of music has fallen. The cost of films has too. And on the PC front at least, gaming has also become cheaper. History thus far has demonstrated that the value and availability to the consumer increases. Maybe, just maybe, it can here too.

Have MS potentially made a bit of a mess of this "transition" thus far? Yes, of course they have, of that their is no doubt. But as guilty as they are for making a mess of it, Sony are as much guilty for idly sitting by and hoping someone else will do all the hard work for them. Either way, maybe we, as gamers all should hope that the video games industry, as a whole, doesn't buck the trend that other industries have set.

Developers and publishers should be asking themselves why people trade at all. Why are people willing to trade games for tuppence. Don't cry to me about budgets and lack of distribution channels and then start making commodities to be consumed quickly and yearly. Stop treating games like hamburgers -- and stop looking to Hollywood for inspiration -- and I might be more sympathetic.

The main problem I have with the Xbox is that I won't be able to play my games after MS switch off their service. I know this won't be for a while but it will make me cautious with how much I spend on the system over it's lifetime. With Steam and GOG, apart from the advantage of cheaper prices, we are able to play games from the DOS-Box era through to the newest releases. I just want to be able to play any game at any time.

slowdog1976 wrote:
Let us take music as a good example. I remember, back in "the day" copying a friends cassette tape. Back then, we knew it was illegal to do so. But, the record labels didn't care, unless you were doing it to make money on a large scale, namely piracy.

Why on Earth would MS switch off the service? Or do we really think that one of the largest server companies in the world couldn't manage to keep a few machines running to service the 157 people still wanting to play One games in 2020?